Literally all "intersectionality" is, as a concept, is the idea that one individual might face discrimination for multiple different facets, and those facets don't exist in a vacuum separate from all other facets.

That's the whole thing. That a black woman might face prejudice because she's black and because she's a woman, and that "black women" have some particular racist and sexist tropes unique to that combination. That's all intersectionality is.

Intersectionalism now is a ranking system, a victimsystem, you might not agree but thats how many people see it. Words change meaning.

About the last thing no, just read what buzzfeed and other left wing say for example about mixed race relationship, hint they say its wrong. Because left now is racists, I dont like it, Im swedish and used to call myself socialist. (And yes I still am, just not intersectional).

Citation fucking needed.

Bear in mind I'm gonna hold you to a citation that establishes that this is a view held by the majority of left-wing people, not just whatever particular editorial writer you decide to take out of context.

Bear in mind I'm gonna hold you to a citation that establishes that this is a view held by the majority of left-wing people, not just whatever particular editorial writer you decide to take out of context.

Did I say majority? No, did i say buzzfeed yes and i can add new york times. But will i get you the links no you can google like everyone else

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Endus

No. It isn't. That's not what the word means. This is a manufactured bit of nonsense people on the right made up. It has no connection to reality whatsoever.

Ok what do you call the new ranking system of "check your privilege". If its not intersectionalism whats the word for it?

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Girighet

Why should I care what some random people say? They represent nobody but themselves. They don't represent leftwing ideas.

True, apart from that they are the mainstream media. They will make others not liking mixed couple asians/whites/males

It isn't just one side. Both sides play to their base. Both sides engage in behavior designed to shut down actual intellectual discussion. In some cases, it is shouting people down. In other cases, it is lying. In the best case, it's intentional misrepresentation.

Sorry, but this is false equivalence. One side does this constantly, and the other side does it rarely...that does not make them the same.

Why should I care what some random person online says? They don't represent leftwing ideas.

True, I hope people you know are true left wing. One of my former friends called me alt right just because Im against massimmigration. Being for a good welfare system is being against massimmigration and being left... And being alt right is not something you really can be and want to live with your filippina wife. So I know he is confused and really not a good friend.

Congrats on not even reading the article, because it completely contradicts your point. The entire piece is just about that one guy and his own internal monologue/prejudices/issues, not some screed about society.

True, I hope people you know are true left wing. One of my former friends called me alt right just because Im against massimmigration. Being for a good welfare system is being against massimmigration and being left... And being alt right is not something you really can be and want to live with your filippina wife. So I know he is confused and really not a good friend.

Their answer for this problem was interesting... create a better NPC(AI called Project Debater) to argue with a human... Endus Bot, here we come!

and who is going to set the agenda for the debate? Clearly "AI Facts Bot" by itself has no agenda by default... whoever hosts the debate wins anyway and if you have some sort of access or influence over most popular platforms you can use these to your own benefit besides future wealth extraction, point is set agenda by the platform wins not liars, bullies and trolls the article refers to.

Also, how do you define facts? If some reputable historian writes a book about the Vietnam War based on partial facts while the whole story is locked in the vault somewhere underground in "top secret" section by our government, what is the fact anyway? Point is what is fact today could be technically impartial information or a lie tomorrow. How is the bot going to counter that?